A quick note: BIBFRAME stands for bibliographic framework and is a proposed replacement of MARC that uses the principles of linked data to store cataloging information in smaller pieces, instead of one record, that opens up the possibilities of connecting it to other data sources, combining library data in interesting ways, and incorporating it within the wider Internet.

Paul Frank (Library of Congress) presented in the morning on the LC BIBFRAME Pilot. He is the coordinator of the testing, including training the LC catalogers testing it and working with the developers programming it. Currently, the 40 catalogers are finishing up the first pilot, with the possibility of a second next year. Once the initial pilot concludes, there will be analysis and a report with findings produced. LC built a BIBFRAME editor and continues to refine it so that the process is streamlined yet still as detailed and robust as catalogers need to capture the necessary information. LC has a dedicated website for the BIBFRAME project and encourages anyone who is conducting their own testing to register with them so that findings and ideas can be more easily shared among independent testers.

Roman Panchyshyn (Kent State University) continued the workshop with his presentation BIBFRAME for Dummies: What can Catalogers do Now? It covered the basics of BIBFRAME and linked data, from definitions and theories to overviews of the different groups trying out the new standard. He also discussed various ways to learn about and prepare for BIBFRAME and provided many resources. Two resources include the University of California (UC) Davis website that details their IMLS grant funded testing and the LC website with BIBFRAME related tools which has the open source code for their editor.

Part of the enjoyment of the workshop was the multitude of questions that the librarians had for both speakers. I have been to many conference of all sizes and this group had an insatiable curiosity and asked hard-hitting questions, clearly driven by a need to understand how it works and why BIBFRAME would be useful, which makes sense since these would be the users of this potential cataloging standard. While there is much left to figure out and test, it is exciting to here about the developments and see the progress so far. If nothing else, perhaps learning about BIBFRAME and linked data will encourage and empower librarians, especially catalogers, to learn programming skills and use them with confidence since they continue to become more popular and useful within libraries.

Slides for the presentations are available and I highly recommend reviewing both of them, staring with Roman Panchyshyn’s for a solid background for those new to the topic.

The second day of the USETDA conference was just as busy as the first, with many great sessions once again. The morning began with a keynote from Lorraine Haricombe (UT Libraries) titled On Life Support or Leading: Academic libraries in a new paradigm (Abstract, PDF). She spoke about libraries needing to step up as leaders in the changing needs of our users to fill more niche roles that are possible such as being a contributor or partner in faculty and student research and data management throughout their process. She also called for more action for open access initiatives, beyond just ETDs.

Although many presentations looked good, I attended Nick Krabbenhoeft’s (Educopia Institute) about the current ETDplus project, When Students Want to Submit More than a PDF (Abstract, PDF) which focuses on the supplemental files that accompany many ETD submissions. Their expected deliverables include curation software, guidance briefs for different stakeholders (students, staff, etc.), and a training workshop. There will be open review and comment phases next summer/fall so I am looking forward to seeing what ETDplus will offer. This is certainly a topic that needs to be addressed.

Next, Todd Bruns (Eastern Illinois) presented Getting Better All the Time: Using Continuous Improvement to Drive Thesis Enhancements (Abstract, PDF). Once the ETDs were into their IR, they wanted to make the records better and did several projects to do both minor and major improvements. The continuous improvement model ensured that their projects were planned, documented, then reviewed after completion to help manage and assess their efforts overall. The PDF slides have more details about what and how their improved their ETDs and metadata displayed in the IR for anyone who interested in learning more, including representing physical specimens and samples in the IR and ETD records.

The afternoon continued with the excellent poster session, covering topics ranging from embargoes to cataloging to student 3 minute ETD videos:

Dealing with the Dynamic – Archiving Dynamic Thesis and Dissertation Documents and Elements in This Era of Great Change by Ginger Dickens and Sunday Phillips (Abstract, PDF)

To wrap up the day, I attended the Vireo Users Group (Abstract) to learn more about the open source submission system maintained and supported by the Texas Digital Library (TDL). Despite being the last session of the day, it was packed room with mostly current users but also some newcomers hoping to get a sense if Vireo would work well for them. It is clear the user community is close knit and enjoys collaborating together. The developers were in the room and gave an update about version 4 which is in development and the metadata working group gave it’s update about their revised standards and recommendations for software enhancements. While developed in Texas, there are many institutions throughout the US now using Vireo and it continues to grow. The Vireo User Group’s website is: http://vireoetd.org/vireo/

For the evening, conference attendees chose one of several restaurants for the dine-arounds to explore Austin’s great local food scene. I ended up at Bangers Sausage House and had a great time getting to know other attendees and enjoyed an antelope and venison sausage. Then, since it is Austin, my husband Steve and I went to an open mic night, in particular a ukulele open mic and he even got to preform (back row far right). Who knew there was an Austin Ukulele Association? We had an awesome time at the Rattle Inn and everyone was so supportive and heartily cheered on all of the performers. What a fun time!

Rather than discuss cataloging solely, which is one specific type, this post will focus on metadata as a whole. The implications and advice will apply to broader projects as well as cataloging but I want to share what I have learned with my most recent project. Mainly, this post is about how to start a metadata project in three steps.

1) Creating metadata

First and foremost, is the creation of information about information, or metadata. Even before the creation, however, decisions must be made, namely what information is needed and how much detail? For example, someone wants to make a list of all their board games so the name of the board game is essential but then number of players and typical duration might be good to include for when friends come over to play games and want to decide on a game quickly.

Usually metadata is readily available, such as the name of a board game on the box, so creating metadata in this case means collecting it. Whether it gets written down by hand or typed up in a document, this gathering of information is really the creation of metadata. But sometimes it isn’t as simple and easy as described, since many items lack identifiable information. What if the board game box is missing? Then the issue at hand becomes either best describing the item based off what’s at-hand or searching to try and track down the name and other information. Searching can be a large part of creating metadata and there are numerous ways to figure out the information that’s lacking: the Internet, other books or materials, asking others, and asking the persons it belonged to or were involved. If my friend made a new board game that I played with them, then it is likely I could provide the name and other information about it if someone asked me.

In most cases, metadata can be created or found out in our tech-savvy, micro-connected information world. It might take time and searching and re-seaching since new information is online and discovered every second of every day, and new minds become experts that see and piece together information differently. But other times, using the best judgement to provide some semblance of metadata for the item at-hand is the only option available.

2) Organizing metadata

This step follows hand-in-hand with the creation of metadata because organizing it is crucial to ensure consistency of a project. Metadata projects usually become large very quickly and need to be orderly to ensure that all of the wanted information is there for each item. All metadata must be in the same location, in the same format, and be as complete as possible. If the board game list was partially written down on scraps of paper in different people’s handwriting while the other portion was typed up on someone’s computer and someone else’s smartphone, how would anyone know if the list was complete before deciding on the game to play? Metadata must be organized to be meaningful.

Today, placing metadata on a computer or in the cloud makes it readable and accessible but there are still various ways in which to organize it. Should the information be typed into a document, a spreadsheet, a database, a MARC record (for cataloging), or on a website made to house that type of metadata? This decision depends on the project itself. A board game list would suffice as a document but in order to easily sort the list by number of players, then a spreadsheet is a much better choice. If the list is for fun then a database is probably not needed but if it’s for a collection of every board game ever made (or Amazon’s warehouse of board games) then a database is the best option. Scale and use of the metadata should determine the organization of it.

Another aspect of organizing is sorting. This also relates to the decision of what information is needed since categories will help ensure consistency. For a board game spreadsheet, three categories for the metadata have already been decided: name of the game, number of players, and typical duration of the game. The spreadsheet needs three columns, which would have shortened column titles, so Name, Players, and Duration; identifying the spreadsheet as So-and-So’s Board Games will allow anyone who sees it to know exactly what the spreadsheet is and means. Ensuring that the metadata is clearly marked helps those who work on the project to be on the same page, as it were, and others who see or use it to know as well. When organizing metadata, make sure to categorize information precisely and concisely.

3) Applying metadata

Depending on the metadata project, this third step will vary. How will the metadata be used? For cataloging, it is meant to be displayed and searchable by the library user in order to find materials, but not all of the metadata is shown because most won’t mean much to that user. Sure, the call number and title are helpful but the MARC record fixed fields and some local librarian notes are not but still must be included for system or librarian use. For the board game list, everything is viewable since there isn’t much in the spreadsheet and it is all relevant to the selection of a game. If information about when the game was bought and how much it cost or if the owner hated or loved certain games was in the spreadsheet, those columns could be hidden since it means something to the owner but they might not want it displayed to others.

Besides concealing metadata not relevant to users, search engines and other company’s who provide databases and information on websites also conceal certain metadata, such as proprietary internal knowledge or processes. There is more than what meets the eye, especially when it comes to search results via the web or a database. Also, hiding some information might be way of protecting certain metadata that is meant to remain anonymous even though it is still connected in some way to the displayed information. As a physical application of metadata, let’s think about the President of the United States’ motorcade–of the five, or so, black SUVs driving to an event, the general public has no idea which one the President is in, although that metadata is know to a select few.

This third step also invokes the how of displaying metadata. For the board games list, allowing anyone to view the spreadsheet themselves is probably fine since the list won’t be long and only has relevant information in it. However, for libraries and companies, displaying certain metadata and providing a means of interacting with it is a necessary chore. A library catalog that uses MARC record metadata can have settings adjusted to show certain fields to a library user, such as call number and title. The same is true for companies and their search results on the web or in a database. For someone beginning a metadata project from scratch, this would be more difficult without software to help. Libraries typically use integrated library system software while companies probably build software internally to have more control. Even before considering how to display metadata, the initial question should be does metadata need to be displayed? Not every metadata project needs to but it will depend on the purpose of the project and who the users will be. If it is meant for internal use to organize information and keep track of items, then a display component probably isn’t necessary but if the metadata project is going to be used by outside researchers and users then some form of search and display capability is needed so that they can use the metadata themselves rather than ask someone on the project for help getting information each and every time. Creating a display won’t be covered in this post but there are lots of possibilities and people capable in the world for setting something up.

Why this blog post now, when I’ve worked as a cataloger for a few years already? In July, I began setting up a new metadata project for the website OpenCoverLetters.com which houses redacted, successful librarian cover letters. All of my knowledge of and skills for cataloging are being used but applied in a different manner for this project. This led me to think about metadata projects more broadly, especially when it comes to first beginning one.

The real challenge is in deciding if a metadata project is needed, and then the rest plays out from there. I hope this post explains metadata further and encourages metadata projects, whether personal or professional. We all have lot of possible metadata projects in our lives that could be done but the question is which ones should be done? Priorities matter since projects like these take much time and effort to get started and keep going as new information and items become available. Upkeep is important as well. Which metadata projects will make the most impact, either in help locate resources or by provide new information of unique and rare materials? High impact ones are a must. For example, my dad’s antique book collection is at top on my list when I am home for the holidays this year–watch for that blog post in late December 2013, if all goes well. Good luck with new or continuing metadata projects!

What a day! So much for taking it easy and not having so much on my list to do today. I ended conferencing for 12 hours, staying busy and engaged nearing the whole time. My plan was to be finished at 4 but things fall into place that you have to roll with sometimes!

This morning began with a change of pace. My mother-in-law @Lorna_Librarian works ILL at the College of Wooster so Steve (@sxflynn) and I went to meet Rapid ILL to find out information for her. They were at a hotel as their home base rather than being on the exhibit floor since they are so specialized, serving only academic librarians. The service and support that they is amazing. Their goal is to provide ILL within 24 hours, and their current average was 13 hours! Most of that is due to electronic resources that some are nearly instantly filled but even print versions usually have a quick turn around. Though they are a small organization that is inside of the Colorado State University library, this is their benefit because they work with their users everyday and are bettering the software and know it inside and out because it what they use. Originally, they created the program after a flood when they lost all of their bound widths and half of their monographs and since then it continues to grow and expand. Very cool!

Luckily, I made it back to the conference center in time for the LC New Bibliographic Framework Update. Roberta Schaffer introduced the session and speakers and said that the session was being recorded. It will be on up YouTube shortly and on the LC website after 6-8 weeks once they have closed captioned it. Beecher Wiggins gave an overview on what has happened since ALA Annual in Anaheim as far as committee work and moving forward. Reinhold Heuvelmann from the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek discussed their trial of Bibframe, touching on the difficulties, what they recommend for improvements, where they see this potentially going and its benefit, and how they are proceeding now to prepare for a linked data Bibframe future. Ted Fons, a Tech Evangelist at OCLC, then also gave his examples of what OCLC has done with linked data and Bibframe, and how a shift is taking place to a more agile, iterative system to get software out sooner and with continual revisions and releases. Part of the push to ensure that this is a long term standard is to use schema.org to utalize the web and linked data, gaining more clout in libraries and use of the resources that we already have by making them more findable in the internet. The purpose is the expose library data. At this point, I left for my lunch plans, knowing that the rest I can catch recorded. The three remaining speakers were Eric Miller, Sally McCallum, and Kevin Ford. However, with leaving early, I missed the official unveiling of http://www.bibframe.org but I caught it on Twitter. This is when Twitter and hashtags truly rock!

After lunch, I hit the exhibit floor and ran into friends and people who know my co-workers. That is part of the beauty of attending a conference, you never know who you will see and catch up with. Or who you will meet! And now, I am recognizing people from past conferences and they are becoming conference friends. Plus, it’s always fun to meet those librarians who work with Safari MARC records that I create. They love meeting me and putting a face to the who is behind the product and making it run. One guy came up and said hi at another session later, already making a point to build our connection–awesome!

Next was the all important RDA Update Forum that had huge attendance, over 200. This one wasn’t recorded and if I had planned ahead I would have brought my laptop to record audio since it was very detailed. That is one issue with sessions, you never know if it will be practical or theoretical, and even then if it’s actionable information or just informative; this was practical and actionable, and I wish I’d had my laptop. Sure I could have used the iPad but it would have been as good from the back of the room–this is my assumption since I’ve not tested iPad Mini recording against a laptop’s. Again, Beecher Wiggins gave the RDA update since last Annual. The final RDA update rewording/rewrite is wrapping up after a few chapters were reviewed and okayed. He also mentioned the http://www.bibframe.org launch. LC have 150 training resource available online for use, just give credit to them. All their staff training will wrap up around March. Next, Troy Linker from ALA Publishing talked specifically about RDA revisions and publishing a new version. RDA Toolkit’s latest improvements was a main portion, pointing out in particular RDA MARC mappings, auto sync table of contents, global and local workflows, videos and tutorials (part of the free section on the toolkit), their blog with first Tue of the month announcing change and second Tue implementing it, and a new print edition out around mid 2013, among other things. Also, there is an Essential RDA in the works, similar to Concise AACR2, that’s meant to be a practical guide and live outside of the toolkit. John Attig from the JSC gave his updates. He walked through the revision process that they did in November at their meeting. CC:DA and JSC websites discuss the changes for RDA and Fast Track keeps a history of all of those changes. Phillip Schruer, a PCC chair, covered PCC and RDA, talking about RDA BIBCO Standard Record, different task groups that have progressed to reviewing recommendations and comments on their reports to create a final version and guidelines. Three in particular focused on hybrid records, access points for expressions, and relationship designators and will be out in a few months. Undifferentiated names are a new focus now but they are still working on it. He also mentioned RDA PCC decision tables. Finally, Cynthia Whitacre from OCLC gave a brief summary of the new RDA policy and how records will be treated in OCLC. They plan to be very open and informative about when they make global changes, doing it piece by piece rather than whole records. In the Q&A, new to me, she mentioned OCLC working on a new bib notification that is very customizable and based on your holdings–no name at this time. I need to find the slides because of all the information convey, especially the very detailed field and subfields changes that are difficult to type everything out. There was a lot of great, useful information provided; a lot to take in!

Surprisingly, RDA ended early. I guess they expected a hour of questions but not many people asked. So with time to spare, I headed over to the Collection Management and Electronic Resources IG. Since it is newish and their leadership fell through, it ended up being an open discussion about ERMs. Very fascinating, not having dealt with them. Apparently there isn’t one perfect software to do everything so based on your institutions needs, and funding, there are multiple things necessary to management the data and other documents for electronic resources. Part of the initial challenge is gather the info but a major hurdle can be all of the data entry. There was a lot of interest in the group and they are look for a chair and vice chair so let me know if you are interested because I have their contact info!

Not having had enough fun for the day, I hit up on last session to satiate my curiosity–the Digital Humanities Discussion Group. This had huge turn out for what the organizers originally planned. This began only at Annual Anaheim last summer and now they are trying to make it an IG due to the interest and growing area and need for it. The session was, similar to my previous, an open discussion about several topics: data and alt-metrics, retraining, digital humanities space. Many people talked about their work and projects, or the challenges faced with beginning, as well as how to proceed as professional librarians. Do we need to change the perception of us as specialists, experts, and end points to being experimenters and explorers along side faculty members? Does buy-in need to come from tenured faculty, newly hired, newly tenured, grad students, or those already using tech, OA, and DH who might be more receptive and interested? Though provoking stuff! Can’t wait to see what these librarians put together for Annual in Chicago! They have a blog and a Twitter @DHandLib–they live tweeted so you can follow the gist of the meeting.

By now, at 5:30, my day was definitely going to end. Plans were to eat chowder, walk to the Space Needle and take in the Chihuly Garden and Glass. However, as things present themselves…

While eating said chowder, we noticed a Thompson Reuters Customer Reception going on next door. And librarians were still going in! So we headed over, Steve being a customer himself, and met some great people, had drinks, food, and collected our first tile. Apparently this is a big thing, and some have attended for 20 years so they have quite a collection! Who knew!?

By 9 p.m., we were back to our place. So much for my plan to not do as much. The thing is, once I get to conferences, I always want to do and see what I can. Being curious also keeps me seeking out topics of interest, or speakers that I want to hear. And ALA sure provides a great selection for no matter what type of library you work for or what your role is. If you are willing to do it, there is always something new or more to learn, and people to meet who are just excited (sometimes if not more)! Making connections is always fun. Especially when you run into again at later ALAs. That’s one of the benefits of returning.